"The Deep State" aka the American Intelligence Community

[tech37]

Of course Lieu teed-up that contrived query. Based on his performance that day, I'm surprised Mueller answered it correctly.

So you're REALLY going to just brush that aside, and pretend that that's just some footnote? Some trifle that Mueller tells the world that he CAN'T indict Trump...and then (gasp) doesn't indict Trump? Come on. This is logic so basic that my daughter can understand it.

He tells you he CAN'T indict a sitting President, Tech. And you're sitting here, telling me your surprised that Mueller----as he just told you-----didn't indict Trump?

Let's let this drop. If you're not going to agree on fundamental things like 1+1=2, there's no point here.

Here is a factual statement for you:

“The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intents present difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred,” Mueller wrote. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

That does NOTHING to change the FACT that Mueller CAN'T indict Trump, Tech. And what part of "this doe not exonerate him" isn't clear enough for you?

....why aren't they going after Trump for the report's so-called findings, now that he's out of office?

Because it comes down to OPINION, Tech. He fired the man investigating him in front of the entire world. Guys like you simply don't care that he did that. So what's the point?

Have a look at what happened to Nixon, Tech. Do you remember the Saturday Night Massacre, where Nixon ordered not one, but two AG's to fire the Special Prosecutor who was investigating him and his team? Now a guy like me says: that's obvious Obstruction of Justices, and it's not even a close call. And yet no formal charges came from the DoJ for the letter of the law obstruction of justice. This is ridiculous, obviously.

And what did you and others say to the parallel of Trump Firing of the guy investigating him, Comey----and then telling the world WHY he fired him?

Same reaction. You didn't care. Did you and OS notice, btw, that Biden left the guy who's investigating Hunter in office, so he can do his job? So apparently this ISN'T some trifle. Say what you want about Biden---at least he understands the principle of obstructing a lawful investigation.

Now if a Mayor fired the guy who is investigating him for crimes? Or a Governor? How fast would the Feds put them under arrest? Ten seconds? Maybe twenty?

And yet you and millions think Trump firing Comey is just a nothing event. No amount of discussion will change your mind, so what's the point? I'm leaving you out of the vortexes.

It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason but then obviously followed with the fact that they cannot indict a sitting POTUS due to legalities. Where in the Report does it state that?

[a fan]

So you're REALLY going to just brush that aside, and pretend that that's just some footnote? Some trifle that Mueller tells the world that he CAN'T indict Trump...and then (gasp) doesn't indict Trump? Come on. This is logic so basic that my daughter can understand it.

He tells you he CAN'T indict a sitting President, Tech. And you're sitting here, telling me your surprised that Mueller----as he just told you-----didn't indict Trump?

Let's let this drop. If you're not going to agree on fundamental things like 1+1=2, there's no point here.

NOBODY was indicted for anything that constituted "collusion" with Russia, ...until Durham's latest "speaking" indictment.

OS, we just spoke of this-----colluding with Russia isn't illegal. Obstructing justice is. And a sitting POTUS can't be indicted for that.

So here we are. Mueller was pointless in terms of Trump himself.


BTW, it would have served our nation well if Biden had fired the people investigating his son, and rubbed our noses in how we handled Trump.

Because who would have standing to complain, after we told Trump that firing Comey was just no big deal?

[dislaxxic]

umm, a bunch of Rooskies got indicted, nyet?

..

[a fan]

It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason

Says who? You? Mueller ran the show, and did what he wanted.

I already gave you the reason for indictment. It was there for the world to see. And it was literally why Nixon was impeached....obstructing justice.

You don't care that Trump fired the guy investigating him, and then told us why. That's your view, and that's fine. But Nixon was kicked out for it. Pity our morals have degraded so much in such a short amount of time.

[tech37]

It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason

Says who? You? Mueller ran the show, and did what he wanted.

I already gave you the reason for indictment. It was there for the world to see. And it was literally why Nixon was impeached....obstructing justice.

You don't care that Trump fired the guy investigating him, and then told us why. That's your view, and that's fine. But Nixon was kicked out for it. Pity our morals have degraded so much in such a short amount of time.

Sorry a fan. If they could prove there was obstruction of justice, the report would have definitely said so. It didn't. And still doesn't

Oh, here's my entire post that you edited for some reason: It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason but then obviously followed with the fact that they cannot indict a sitting POTUS due to legalities. Where in the Report does it state that?

And "for the record" since "guys like you" keep wanting to label me a Trump supporter, as mentioned many times on here, IMO, TRump should not be allowed to run again for POTUS and I'm praying someone else other than he will become the '24 nominee.

[old salt]

umm, a bunch of Rooskies got indicted, nyet?

..

none with any connection to Trump or anyone else in the US. They were already identified before Obama left office, not discovered by Mueller's investigation.

[MDlaxfan76]

It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason

Says who? You? Mueller ran the show, and did what he wanted.

I already gave you the reason for indictment. It was there for the world to see. And it was literally why Nixon was impeached....obstructing justice.

You don't care that Trump fired the guy investigating him, and then told us why. That's your view, and that's fine. But Nixon was kicked out for it. Pity our morals have degraded so much in such a short amount of time.

Sorry a fan. If they could prove there was obstruction of justice, the report would have definitely said so. It didn't. And still doesn't

Oh, here's my entire post that you edited for some reason: It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason but then obviously followed with the fact that they cannot indict a sitting POTUS due to legalities. Where in the Report does it state that?

And "for the record" since "guys like you" keep wanting to label me a Trump supporter, as mentioned many times on here, IMO, TRump should not be allowed to run again for POTUS and I'm praying someone else other than he will become the '24 nominee.

Sorry, tech, but your assumption is factually incorrect and Mueller specifically told us why.

Ethical prosecutors are not supposed to ever accuse someone of a crime unless they are actually indicting them with the full belief that they will achieve a conviction.

So, the Report made clear that they could not indict but that such in no way meant that if this wasn’t a sitting POTUS they could not do so based on what they found, the most obvious of such was the obstruction of justice. And so the obstruction meant that Trump could not be required to be under oath, produce documents, communications, etc and was free to offer shelter to others, pardons etc so as to withhold testimony and evidence.

[MDlaxfan76]

Meanwhile, Trump and his minions and enablers are doing everything they can to withhold evidence and testimony regarding potentially criminal acts taken while Trump was still in office.

And though he’s not currently President, he’s implying promises of shelter in the future an/or threat in the meantime.

Playing the clock.

Ethically, this too is obstruction.

[a fan]

And "for the record" since "guys like you" keep wanting to label me a Trump supporter, as mentioned many times on here, IMO, TRump should not be allowed to run again for POTUS and I'm praying someone else other than he will become the '24 nominee.

I didn't say that------putting words in me mouth, are ya?

What I wrote was: He (Trump) fired the man investigating him (Comey) in front of the entire world. Guys like you simply don't care that he did that. Never labeled you a Trump supporter.

I've told you three times now what the Obstruction of Justice is. You don't agree to such an extent that you haven't even noticed that I've told you three times that the Obstruction if justice was: Trump firing Comey. THAT is the obstruction of justice. Again, this is what Nixon was impeached for, Tech...."Obstruction of justice", and "Abuse of Power"

Any other Government official would be charged with Obstruction of justice if they fired the person investigating him. It's not okay to do that. And it pains me that I apparently have to explain to you as to why this is a bad thing.


You disagree----clearly---to the point that you didn't really notice Trump Obstructed justice by firing Comey. You don't need Mueller to tell you that, yup, Trump fired Comey.

And that's fine! You have your position, and I have mine. No need to enter the vortex!

And again: Notice Biden didn't fire the guy investigating his son, Hunter. That's the higher ground, Tech. The path Trump DIDN'T take. You should notice these choices that our leaders make, imho.

[MDlaxfan76]

umm, a bunch of Rooskies got indicted, nyet?

..

none with any connection to Trump or anyone else in the US. They were already identified before Obama left office, not discovered by Mueller's investigation.

He’s innocent dammit!

[tech37]

And "for the record" since "guys like you" keep wanting to label me a Trump supporter, as mentioned many times on here, IMO, TRump should not be allowed to run again for POTUS and I'm praying someone else other than he will become the '24 nominee.

I didn't say that------putting words in me mouth, are ya?
Man, you sure do take things literally.

What I wrote was: He (Trump) fired the man investigating him (Comey) in front of the entire world. Guys like you simply don't care that he did that. Never labeled you a Trump supporter.

I've told you three times now what the Obstruction of Justice is. You don't agree to such an extent that you haven't even noticed that I've told you three times that the Obstruction if justice was: Trump firing Comey. THAT is the obstruction of justice. Again, this is what Nixon was impeached for, Tech...."Obstruction of justice", and "Abuse of Power"

Any other Government official would be charged with Obstruction of justice if they fired the person investigating him. It's not okay to do that. And it pains me that I apparently have to explain to you as to why this is a bad thing.

You disagree----clearly---to the point that you didn't really notice Trump Obstructed justice by firing Comey. You don't need Mueller to tell you that, yup, Trump fired Comey.

And that's fine! You have your position, and I have mine. No need to enter the vortex!

And again: Notice Biden didn't fire the guy investigating his son, Hunter. That's the higher ground, Tech. The path Trump DIDN'T take. You should notice these choices that our leaders make, imho.
The original discussion was re what the majority of the public now believes re Russian collusion. You got upset re my Mueller comment and went off on a divergent, ad nauseam, rehash of Trump's supposed crimes. Nothing more needs to be said and I'm out.

[a fan]

Man, you sure do take things literally.

With you? Yes. You TOLD me to do that, remember? Because if I don't do that, you claim strawman or moved goalposts, or whatever.....

The original discussion was re what the majority of the public now believes re Russian collusion

Meeting with Russian spies in Trump Tower, looking for dirt on your political opponent will do that.

[tech37]

Man, you sure do take things literally.

With you? Yes. You TOLD me to do that, remember? Because if I don't do that, you claim strawman or moved goalposts, or whatever.....

No. I didn't TELL you anything. I suggested you ask, otherwise you were guessing and misrepresenting people's posts.

[a fan]

Man, you sure do take things literally.

With you? Yes. You TOLD me to do that, remember? Because if I don't do that, you claim strawman or moved goalposts, or whatever.....

No. I didn't TELL you anything. I suggested you ask, otherwise you were guessing and misrepresenting people's posts.

Right. And yet this is the second time you're mocking me for respecting this request, taking you literally, and only responding to what you write.

But that's wrong, too. Got it.

[seacoaster]

And "for the record" since "guys like you" keep wanting to label me a Trump supporter, as mentioned many times on here, IMO, TRump should not be allowed to run again for POTUS and I'm praying someone else other than he will become the '24 nominee.

I didn't say that------putting words in me mouth, are ya?
Man, you sure do take things literally.

What I wrote was: He (Trump) fired the man investigating him (Comey) in front of the entire world. Guys like you simply don't care that he did that. Never labeled you a Trump supporter.

I've told you three times now what the Obstruction of Justice is. You don't agree to such an extent that you haven't even noticed that I've told you three times that the Obstruction if justice was: Trump firing Comey. THAT is the obstruction of justice. Again, this is what Nixon was impeached for, Tech...."Obstruction of justice", and "Abuse of Power"

Any other Government official would be charged with Obstruction of justice if they fired the person investigating him. It's not okay to do that. And it pains me that I apparently have to explain to you as to why this is a bad thing.

You disagree----clearly---to the point that you didn't really notice Trump Obstructed justice by firing Comey. You don't need Mueller to tell you that, yup, Trump fired Comey.

And that's fine! You have your position, and I have mine. No need to enter the vortex!

And again: Notice Biden didn't fire the guy investigating his son, Hunter. That's the higher ground, Tech. The path Trump DIDN'T take. You should notice these choices that our leaders make, imho.
The original discussion was re what the majority of the public now believes re Russian collusion. You got upset re my Mueller comment and went off on a divergent, ad nauseam, rehash of Trump's supposed crimes. Nothing more needs to be said and I'm out.

Just curious: did anyone find more recent polling than the article/poll from mid-2019 (which sensibly found that most people think what every reasonable person knows)?

[old salt]

Meeting with Russian spies in Trump Tower, looking for dirt on your political opponent will do that.

It's better to pay your campaign's law firm to do that for you. That's how the pros play it.

[get it to x]

It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason

Says who? You? Mueller ran the show, and did what he wanted.

I already gave you the reason for indictment. It was there for the world to see. And it was literally why Nixon was impeached....obstructing justice.

You don't care that Trump fired the guy investigating him, and then told us why. That's your view, and that's fine. But Nixon was kicked out for it. Pity our morals have degraded so much in such a short amount of time.

Sorry a fan. If they could prove there was obstruction of justice, the report would have definitely said so. It didn't. And still doesn't

Oh, here's my entire post that you edited for some reason: It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason but then obviously followed with the fact that they cannot indict a sitting POTUS due to legalities. Where in the Report does it state that?

And "for the record" since "guys like you" keep wanting to label me a Trump supporter, as mentioned many times on here, IMO, TRump should not be allowed to run again for POTUS and I'm praying someone else other than he will become the '24 nominee.

Sorry, tech, but your assumption is factually incorrect and Mueller specifically told us why.

Ethical prosecutors are not supposed to ever accuse someone of a crime unless they are actually indicting them with the full belief that they will achieve a conviction.

So, the Report made clear that they could not indict but that such in no way meant that if this wasn’t a sitting POTUS they could not do so based on what they found, the most obvious of such was the obstruction of justice. And so the obstruction meant that Trump could not be required to be under oath, produce documents, communications, etc and was free to offer shelter to others, pardons etc so as to withhold testimony and evidence.

Will '76 be able to watch the whole 5 minutes? You don't think these jackals did everything in their power to dig up an indictable offense? The tell is at @ 1:50 where Mueller says Trump is a special situation, not entitled to the same protections as any American citizen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfFtq8C_1_4

[MDlaxfan76]

It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason

Says who? You? Mueller ran the show, and did what he wanted.

I already gave you the reason for indictment. It was there for the world to see. And it was literally why Nixon was impeached....obstructing justice.

You don't care that Trump fired the guy investigating him, and then told us why. That's your view, and that's fine. But Nixon was kicked out for it. Pity our morals have degraded so much in such a short amount of time.

Sorry a fan. If they could prove there was obstruction of justice, the report would have definitely said so. It didn't. And still doesn't

Oh, here's my entire post that you edited for some reason: It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason but then obviously followed with the fact that they cannot indict a sitting POTUS due to legalities. Where in the Report does it state that?

And "for the record" since "guys like you" keep wanting to label me a Trump supporter, as mentioned many times on here, IMO, TRump should not be allowed to run again for POTUS and I'm praying someone else other than he will become the '24 nominee.

Sorry, tech, but your assumption is factually incorrect and Mueller specifically told us why.

Ethical prosecutors are not supposed to ever accuse someone of a crime unless they are actually indicting them with the full belief that they will achieve a conviction.

So, the Report made clear that they could not indict but that such in no way meant that if this wasn’t a sitting POTUS they could not do so based on what they found, the most obvious of such was the obstruction of justice. And so the obstruction meant that Trump could not be required to be under oath, produce documents, communications, etc and was free to offer shelter to others, pardons etc so as to withhold testimony and evidence.

Will '76 be able to watch the whole 5 minutes? You don't think these jackals did everything in their power to dig up an indictable offense? The tell is at @ 1:50 where Mueller says Trump is a special situation, not entitled to the same protections as any American citizen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfFtq8C_1_4

The Rat doesn't let him answer...The Rat wants to hear himself speak, he characterizes the situation and doesn't allow Mueller to explain...which he has a right to do "it's my time". But as a result Mueller is not able to explain. Because the Rat won't let him.

Yes, this is indeed a "special situation". Trump is the sitting POTUS so he can't be indicted (according to DOJ policy...not statute or constitution, just DOJ policy...talk about "protections"!! ) and thus, he is also neither to be considered guilty nor innocent of any potential allegation of a crime by the mere fact of not being indicted.

That Mueller et al felt it was important to say this, rather than to report that they had not found evidence of an otherwise indictable crime does indeed speak volumes, given that what they do report clearly indicates multiple otherwise chargeable offenses of at a minimum obstruction of justice. They detail these potentially chargeable offenses but do not accuse the sitting President nor indict him.

In other words, if they had been able to report that they had found no evidence of an otherwise chargeable crime they'd have said so, which indeed would have been an exoneration...but that's not what they found.

I had watched this bit of theater live, which ultimately got the Rat his next job as a high ranking toady, and knew it was complete BS as he did it. And I ain't a lawyer.

The Rat claims that the second volume, which details the work they did and the obstruction they faced, was 100% inappropriate because it was from the get go impossible to charge the sitting President for the actions detailed, so, according to the Rat, neither a declination nor an indictment. He says "no decision was reached" thus by effect 'don't tell us about it'...Actually a decision was indeed reached, according to DOJ policy, but the Rat doesn't want to let Mueller say so, so he filibusters the time.

Bottomline, the Rat wants us to believe that, since the sitting President can't be indicted, he can and could commit any criminal act and the Special Prosecutor could neither indict nor even report what was found. 'Shut up, don't tell us.' (and poor DJT, the victim)

But hey, he agrees, "the President is not above the law"...hoo boy.

[tech37]

It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason

Says who? You? Mueller ran the show, and did what he wanted.

I already gave you the reason for indictment. It was there for the world to see. And it was literally why Nixon was impeached....obstructing justice.

You don't care that Trump fired the guy investigating him, and then told us why. That's your view, and that's fine. But Nixon was kicked out for it. Pity our morals have degraded so much in such a short amount of time.

Sorry a fan. If they could prove there was obstruction of justice, the report would have definitely said so. It didn't. And still doesn't

Oh, here's my entire post that you edited for some reason: It is your logic that is remiss. If they had uncovered any reason to indict, the Report would have specifically stated that reason but then obviously followed with the fact that they cannot indict a sitting POTUS due to legalities. Where in the Report does it state that?

And "for the record" since "guys like you" keep wanting to label me a Trump supporter, as mentioned many times on here, IMO, TRump should not be allowed to run again for POTUS and I'm praying someone else other than he will become the '24 nominee.

Sorry, tech, but your assumption is factually incorrect and Mueller specifically told us why.

Ethical prosecutors are not supposed to ever accuse someone of a crime unless they are actually indicting them with the full belief that they will achieve a conviction.

So, the Report made clear that they could not indict but that such in no way meant that if this wasn’t a sitting POTUS they could not do so based on what they found, the most obvious of such was the obstruction of justice. And so the obstruction meant that Trump could not be required to be under oath, produce documents, communications, etc and was free to offer shelter to others, pardons etc so as to withhold testimony and evidence.

Will '76 be able to watch the whole 5 minutes? You don't think these jackals did everything in their power to dig up an indictable offense? The tell is at @ 1:50 where Mueller says Trump is a special situation, not entitled to the same protections as any American citizen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfFtq8C_1_4

The Rat doesn't let him answer...The Rat wants to hear himself speak, he characterizes the situation and doesn't allow Mueller to explain...which he has a right to do "it's my time". But as a result Mueller is not able to explain. Because the Rat won't let him.

Yes, this is indeed a "special situation". Trump is the sitting POTUS so he can't be indicted (according to DOJ policy...not statute or constitution, just DOJ policy...talk about "protections"!! ) and thus, he is also neither to be considered guilty nor innocent of any potential allegation of a crime by the mere fact of not being indicted.

That Mueller et al felt it was important to say this, rather than to report that they had not found evidence of an otherwise indictable crime does indeed speak volumes, given that what they do report clearly indicates multiple otherwise chargeable offenses of at a minimum obstruction of justice. They detail these potentially chargeable offenses but do not accuse the sitting President nor indict him.
Complete bullsh!t. IF they had indictable evidence they would have done whatever was necessary to nail him and the Report would have screamed "lock him up!" based on that evidence. Claiming the DOJ statute applies to your position in this context is the epitome of specious. It's nothing but an advantageous excuse.

[youthathletics]

The most investigated man in the history of the world, by a long shot.....and still has no charges against him. Crazy how smart Trump he must be...THAT is what must drive everyone crazy. It's a damned shame they cant get him on anything, otherwise he may run again.